Alastair Johnston - is this man really our Chairman?

[Frankie 505]

What im trying to get at tho Frankie is, hes not exactly the mad axeman that people had us believe. I will name no names

That may well be the case but I think the jury is still out for me...

After all, imperfect protests or not, who's to say the negative coverage Muir/Lloyds have received from Rangers supporters haven't affected their attitude over the last year or so?

As always, I'd suggest the truth about the pros and cons of Muir lies somewhere in the middle ground. He's obviously a talented professional in his field and I'm sure we are benefiting from that somewhere along the line. However, I'm also sure his strategy may change depending on circumstances so would urge caution before declaring him a success at this moment in time.

Nobody really knows who is the big bad wolf and who is little red riding hood in this particular story.

[boss 1,941]

Muir may or may not have done a good job but it is difficult to tell until our manager signs a new contract, the future of several players (out of contract or not) are secured and our operational strategy/budget for the coming season made clear.

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

Muir may or may not have done a good job but it is difficult to tell until our manager signs a new contract, the future of several players (out of contract or not) are secured and our operational strategy/budget for the coming season made clear.

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

Would that be because of Muir or the bank?

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Muir may or may not have done a good job but it is difficult to tell until our manager signs a new contract, the future of several players (out of contract or not) are secured and our operational strategy/budget for the coming season made clear.

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

Would that be because of Muir or the bank?

I remember the good old days when muir used to be the bank…….

[Frankie 505]

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

To a degree, yes.

We're all in a difficult position because none of us really know the ins and outs of what is happening. In addition to that, the situation is obviously quite a fluid one - see AJ's '7-10 day long term plan' AGM quote for evidence of that - so all of us can easily go back to a period where one point of view may have looked more accurate than the other.

For example, Muir/AJ/Lloyds or whoever may agree a budget now that Smith may feel is suitable enough as it stands. However, whose to say that won't change again in January and/or next May. Of course our finance will change depending on success (or the lack of it) but there is a fine line between prudence and competitiveness.

Muir is the one tasked with finding that line and I certainly don't envy him of it - especially with the flak he gets from people forming an opinion on what others (with or without agendas) tell them. I'm also sure he understands criticism goes with the territory and fortunately I don't see him hiding from it as he could do.

To conclude, for me, it isn't about A or B being the enemy or the saviour; it should just be about working together to ensure we err on the right side of the line already mentioned. I'm not sure that is happening so I'm unsure praise (or indeed criticism) of any individual party is particularly helpful at the moment. As I've consistently said, everyone has to take their fair share of the blame for the situation being so farcical at times - Muir included.

[caseyjones 3,009]

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

To a degree, yes.

We're all in a difficult position because none of us really know the ins and outs of what is happening. In addition to that, the situation is obviously quite a fluid one - see AJ's '7-10 day long term plan' AGM quote for evidence of that - so all of us can easily go back to a period where one point of view may have looked more accurate than the other.

For example, Muir/AJ/Lloyds or whoever may agree a budget now that Smith may feel is suitable enough as it stands. However, whose to say that won't change again in January and/or next May. Of course our finance will change depending on success (or the lack of it) but there is a fine line between prudence and competitiveness.

Muir is the one tasked with finding that line and I certainly don't envy him of it - especially with the flak he gets from people forming an opinion on what others (with or without agendas) tell them. I'm also sure he understands criticism goes with the territory and fortunately I don't see him hiding from it as he could do.

To conclude, for me, it isn't about A or B being the enemy or the saviour; it should just be about working together to ensure we err on the right side of the line already mentioned. I'm not sure that is happening so I'm unsure praise (or indeed criticism) of any individual party is particularly helpful at the moment. As I've consistently said, everyone has to take their fair share of the blame for the situation being so farcical at times - Muir included.

Is Walter qualified to decide what the club's budget should be?

Surely he can only decide what is acceptable for him to stay on.

[Bluedell 14]

Muir may or may not have done a good job but it is difficult to tell until our manager signs a new contract, the future of several players (out of contract or not) are secured and our operational strategy/budget for the coming season made clear.

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

The fact that we don't know whether Walter will stay on, and we ended the season without anyone, including Walter, not knowing what the manager's budget is for next season suggests that all the directors, including Muir, are not doing a good job.

If Walter doesn't stay on, is that indicative that Muir is not doing a reasonable job?

[Frankie 505]

Is Walter qualified to decide what the club's budget should be?

Surely he can only decide what is acceptable for him to stay on.

I don't think Walter is daft so I'm sure he can weigh up the overall strategy put to him and decide whether or not it will satisfy his ambitions in terms of putting a competitive team on the park. The same goes with any contract offer that he may or not find acceptable.

Obviously another manager may think any challenge Smith rejects is one they can achieve but I'd be inclined to be very disappointed and sceptical if one of our most legendary managers thinks the job is too difficult and feels undermined strategically.

And I say that as someone who thinks Walter Smith hasn't helped the overall situation with his inflammatory comments over the last 6 or 7 months.

[Frankie 505]

The fact that we don't know whether Walter will stay on, and we ended the season without anyone, including Walter, not knowing what the manager's budget is for next season suggests that all the directors, including Muir, are not doing a good job.

Spot on.

The fact we seem unable to plan more than a fortnight in advance is bizarre and I find it unacceptable that almost a month after sealing the league title we seem no closer to resolving the situation. It is bordering on a farce and everyone involved should be questioned as to why this is the case.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

So if Walter agrees to stay on and he is comfortable with the budget for next season, you're happy to accept that perhaps Muir might have done a reasonable job in the circumstances?

To a degree, yes.

We're all in a difficult position because none of us really know the ins and outs of what is happening. In addition to that, the situation is obviously quite a fluid one - see AJ's '7-10 day long term plan' AGM quote for evidence of that - so all of us can easily go back to a period where one point of view may have looked more accurate than the other.

For example, Muir/AJ/Lloyds or whoever may agree a budget now that Smith may feel is suitable enough as it stands. However, whose to say that won't change again in January and/or next May. Of course our finance will change depending on success (or the lack of it) but there is a fine line between prudence and competitiveness.

Muir is the one tasked with finding that line and I certainly don't envy him of it - especially with the flak he gets from people forming an opinion on what others (with or without agendas) tell them. I'm also sure he understands criticism goes with the territory and fortunately I don't see him hiding from it as he could do.

To conclude, for me, it isn't about A or B being the enemy or the saviour; it should just be about working together to ensure we err on the right side of the line already mentioned. I'm not sure that is happening so I'm unsure praise (or indeed criticism) of any individual party is particularly helpful at the moment. As I've consistently said, everyone has to take their fair share of the blame for the situation being so farcical at times - Muir included.

Is Walter qualified to decide what the club's budget should be?

Surely he can only decide what is acceptable for him to stay on.

In some ways yes and in some ways no, on what the budget should be, but being the person who would have to manage the team day in day out, and try to perform in the CL, SPL and the two cups for a whole season will know what size and type of squad he will require, and working in management for such a long time he will have a very good idea of what will be required to continue bringing us the success that we want and expect.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Is Walter qualified to decide what the club's budget should be?

Surely he can only decide what is acceptable for him to stay on.

I don't think Walter is daft so I'm sure he can weigh up the overall strategy put to him and decide whether or not it will satisfy his ambitions in terms of putting a competitive team on the park. The same goes with any contract offer that he may or not find acceptable.

Obviously another manager may think any challenge Smith rejects is one they can achieve but I'd be inclined to be very disappointed and sceptical if one of our most legendary managers thinks the job is too difficult and feels undermined strategically.

And I say that as someone who thinks Walter Smith hasn't helped the overall situation with his inflammatory comments over the last 6 or 7 months.

Every manager would like a larger transfer budget and will have a figure in mind of what they will need to enable their plans to work and I am sure that Walter is no different. Spending more than we can afford however, is something which, thankfully, seems to be in the past.

If he, and the out of contract players, want to stay, it needs to be on the club's terms. The gambling days are over.

[Frankie 505]

Every manager would like a larger transfer budget and will have a figure in mind of what they will need to enable their plans to work and I am sure that Walter is no different. Spending more than we can afford however, is something which, thankfully, seems to be in the past.

If he, and the out of contract players, want to stay, it needs to be on the club's terms. The gambling days are over.

Absolutely...

I also think Smith has shown he will work with a reduced budget but just wants to make sure necessary prudence isn't confused with unreasonable bank demands.

[disgruntled_bear 157]

Walter success will be a hindrance when it comes to demanding funds, afterall he has shown he can work with "no budget" and still win.

Now us fans and no doubt our management team see things different, but for the board and the situation we find ourselves in. You could see them going with a minimum approach, I wouldn't be surprised if we have more of the same next season...

[caseyjones 3,009]

Every manager would like a larger transfer budget and will have a figure in mind of what they will need to enable their plans to work and I am sure that Walter is no different. Spending more than we can afford however, is something which, thankfully, seems to be in the past.

If he, and the out of contract players, want to stay, it needs to be on the club's terms. The gambling days are over.

Absolutely...

I also think Smith has shown he will work with a reduced budget but just wants to make sure necessary prudence isn't confused with unreasonable bank demands.

From his previous comments, I'm not sure what way he will see it now.

[boss 1,941]

The fact that we don't know whether Walter will stay on, and we ended the season without anyone, including Walter, not knowing what the manager's budget is for next season suggests that all the directors, including Muir, are not doing a good job.

Surely that's got more to do with it being impossible to know whether we'd have a new owner last week, next month, or next year? Walter himself stated that he was comfortable working without a contract in case a new owner didn't want him. And it's Walter himself that has yet to come out and state whether he has decided to stay for next season. How were the directors supposed to achieve a degree of certainty at that time in such an uncertain situation? Punt Walter?

[PhilLeotardo 0]

I find it remarkable that Alastair Johnston is in anyone's firing line given the conduct and general incompetence of several others in the board room.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I find it remarkable that Alastair Johnston is in anyone's firing line given the conduct and general incompetence of several others in the board room.

Paul murray ?

[PhilLeotardo 0]

Paul murray ?

No. His namesake.

[nvager 498]

I think there is a battle going on between Lloyds/SDM and Muir/AJ and WS. There is also Ellis to consider. No-one is the real winner just yet, but we the fans are the losers as this internecine fighting seems to continue ad nausea.

This is an unnaceptable situation, but I cannot see a way out of it until either Ellis makes an acceptable offer or Lloyds put their foot down and say this is it.

[mairydilk 22]

I thought he was given the role with the sole intention of finding a buyer for the club, no other chairman-like duties were included?

[AMMS 27]

I thought he was given the role with the sole intention of finding a buyer for the club, no other chairman-like duties were included?

Why make him Chairman then, why not just give him that role and make him an executive director?

[jimgers 565]

I think there is a battle going on between Lloyds/SDM and Muir/AJ and WS. There is also Ellis to consider. No-one is the real winner just yet, but we the fans are the losers as this internecine fighting seems to continue ad nausea.

This is an unnaceptable situation, but I cannot see a way out of it until either Ellis makes an acceptable offer or Lloyds put their foot down and say this is it.

So much infighting and people changing allegiances it makes a gang fight in Easterhouse look tame in comparison.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Johnston, Muir, Bain, Smith, Ellis, the-only-show-in-town crew.........yes, all the names are there in the frame of this ongoing Rangers FC soap opera.....all except the one name that matters....the guy who has landed this once great club in the middle of a shit-hole.

David E. Murray.

If anyone want to lay blame for our present state on someone - go no further than Murray's door in Edinburgh.

I will say one thing in defence of Johnston (as if he needed my backing).

At least he has never bad-mouthed the Rangers support (or Glaswegians in particular) in the same way that the Edinburgh-based shyster has.

Bastard!!

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I will say one thing in defence of Johnston (as if he needed my backing).

At least he has never bad-mouthed the Rangers support (or Glaswegians in particular) in the same way that the Edinburgh-based shyster has.

Bastard!!

.. errr tahts a new one on me - seen him accused of many a thing but bad mouthing our support or weegies is news to me.

Clossetted Loyal

[caseyjones 3,009]

I will say one thing in defence of Johnston (as if he needed my backing).

At least he has never bad-mouthed the Rangers support (or Glaswegians in particular) in the same way that the Edinburgh-based shyster has.

Bastard!!

.. errr tahts a new one on me - seen him accused of many a thing but bad mouthing our support or weegies is news to me.

Clossetted Loyal

From 1997:

He said: "The Rangers supporters are different from Celtic's in this respect.

"Celtic have gone public, many of their fans have stumped up hard money to buy shares, which in turn has helped finance their stadium, and as a result, I sometimes think their supporters feel greater loyalty to the cause.

"They actually feel a part of what's been created.

"Rangers fans still have to buy their season tickets and I'm not dismissing that.

"But they basically got the stadium for nothing - and some of them have had it too easy for too long."

His comments are bound to rile some fans who are angry at the team's lack of success in Europe.

However, Murray feels these are changing times for the club's followers. He said: "One of our problems right now is that we're trying to change our traditions, we're trying to re-educate

our supporters. Ten or 11 years ago, for instance, our average support was something like 20,000. Now it is up to 50,000 and some of these people haven't known what it is like to lose or to be down."